Brett Kavenaugh letter details...
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
How many cases does the AD's office in Oklahoma take on of this exact nature that is over 30 years old? Why did she speak up now? You believe this deserves an investigation? You believe allegations this old with no proof actually deserve the light of day? IF there was a crime committed, she had plenty of time to speak up prior to deciding the time to come "forward" was now, because for her this is more political then about justice. If she wanted justice, she should have pursued it long ago. This is no longer about justice, this is revenge and vengeance. We should all seek justice, but this is not justice anyone that thinks that? Hope you experience this form of "justice" in your life time.
Complete waste of time. Women should not have a never ending statute of limitations and be able to set a trap by saying something to a counselor decades later and using that as "proof" of guilt, or some flimsy like detector test administered by her attorney.
We should have no detectives, that IS the problem.
I have one question on #3? If the accuser can't recall when or where this party was, how can Kavanaugh (and his witnesses) attest that he wasn't present?
As a family member of someone who has suffered a sexual assault and as someone who has worked with victims of sexual assaults, I realize there are myriad reasons why victims don’t come forward immediately....only 30 years later....or ever.
I’m not saying a criminal investigation needs to be done. One doesn’t. The statute of limitations has run.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be appointed. That decision and the evaluation of her credibility is the job of the individual Senators. If he doesn’t get appointed, he goes back to his life time appointment on the appellate court...pretty sweet gig.
I just find the “if she didn’t report it when it happened, she’s obviously lying” attitude personally sickening.
So you’re a “relative” truth guy....the truth is what suits you.
No, truth is not a matter of degrees.
Even if it was, you made your statements about her lying with absolutely nothing but certainty she is lying....and that’s why it’s bs.
I have a family member as well that is a SA victim. I also know someone who had a family member that under hypnosis claimed she was sexually attacked when she was young (brother molesting the sister), we are talking 25 years back. I saw how devastating this was to the person who was alleged to have done this, it was so unfair. It changed this person forever and not in a good way, it literally turned off the "light bulb" and their zest for life and this was an individual that lead an exemplary life in terms of treating others.
I have no idea if she is telling the truth, but I do believe her motive is not justice but vengeance.
Reps are *ussies for even putting up with this, and I fear where society is going on SA allegations when it comes to women making claims, guilty until proven innocent on decades old allegations? Men need to stand up for their rights, this is complete and utter BS.
What’s funny to me is this: Let’s say the incident was reported immediately after it happened. And then the guy gets charged as a juvenile with a sexual battery charge. Let’s further hypothesize that he’s found guilty and is court ordered to get counseling and does what he’s supposed to do in order to turn his life around. Because he was a juvenile at the time, the court proceedings are closed to the public and records are sealed. Nothing gets published in the newspaper or broadcast on TV. The kid goes on to accomplish something positive with his life and all is well.
Such an instance defines the purpose of the juvenile justice system. Perhaps we would laud the turnaround that the young man made, similar to Ben Carson’s story.
But here we are.
Such an instance defines the purpose of the juvenile justice system. Perhaps we would laud the turnaround that the young man made, similar to Ben Carson’s story.
But here we are.
You say you have no idea if she is telling the truth, but believe her motive is not justice but vengeance.
You believe that to be true even if she is telling the truth?
At least you admit you have no idea if she is telling the truth. The same cannot be said for plenty of others here.
He does go back to his sweet gig...I get what you are saying with “doesn’t just”...but his career is intact even with questions about his integrity. Yes, I agree his name and character is smeared....which is awful if she is lying and I will confess to being conflicted, but ultimately mostly OK with if the accusations are true.
The ENTIRETY of it is sordid, I agree.
Her timing IMO in coming forward points to motive when it comes to justice versus vengeance. You may not agree with that logic, but I believe it and it is my opinion. She could have come forward far earlier, but she waited until the time to inflict as much damage to this individual as possible.
[QUOTE="CowboyJD, post: 1300114, member: 960"If he doesn’t get appointed, he goes back to his life time appointment on the appellate court...pretty sweet gig.[/QUOTE]
This is where I call BS. How many people grow up wanting to be lawyers, Dr's, fire fighters, police officers, pro athletes or maybe Supreme Court Judges? How do people feel when they can'f fulfill a lifelong dream?
All that I can see is she has one major thing that seems to be legit and that is her saying he did it. This is after she said nothing for ~34 years. (guessing she told her husband and the therapist a couple of years ago) She said nothing when she could have during 6 FBI background checks. That is just crap.
His life is ruined, probably no matter what happens now. He will never be looked the same again, his wife will never be looked at the same again. His children the same also.
He just does not go back to a "sweet gig", that is over.
This is where I call BS. How many people grow up wanting to be lawyers, Dr's, fire fighters, police officers, pro athletes or maybe Supreme Court Judges? How do people feel when they can'f fulfill a lifelong dream?
All that I can see is she has one major thing that seems to be legit and that is her saying he did it. This is after she said nothing for ~34 years. (guessing she told her husband and the therapist a couple of years ago) She said nothing when she could have during 6 FBI background checks. That is just crap.
His life is ruined, probably no matter what happens now. He will never be looked the same again, his wife will never be looked at the same again. His children the same also.
He just does not go back to a "sweet gig", that is over.
Actually the timing is more on sen Feinstein and not the accuser. Feinstein held the info private until the last minute to cause the turmoil. The dems are at fault.
If she sent the letter in July when he was nominated that's reasonable. Him becoming a judge on the appellate court would not have received the attention from the media that someone across the country would even notice. Therefore I can understand her not sending a letter on his previous appointments.
But again she could be telling the truth, but there is still no evidence or other witnesses that have come forward with any credibility. Not much to investigate in my non detective opinion.
Agreed. My issues that raise serious questions to this accusation are as follows:
1) When she chose to report the incident, it wasn't to authorities, but rather to a state congressperson. Not exactly the normal channels for reporting a sexual assualt.
2) Once reported, it was elevated to a member of the review committee, who thought so highly of the accusation that she (Feinstein) sat on it for 2 months before leaking the details to the press at the 11th hour. If this were a real matter, why wasn't it addressed immediately. Why didn't Feinstein question him about it during her allotted interview time or report such a heinous crime to authorities?
3) Details matter. I find it questionable that she remembered Kavanaugh's name 35+ years later (and was even sure it was THAT Kavanaugh), yet doesn't know when (not even to the month) or where the event actually occurred. I also find it interesting that the claim made to her therapist in 2012 doesn't align with her most recent claim, although she at least provided a plausible story for the mismatch in number of individuals between her current account and the therapist's story.
These occurrences raise real questions about the validity of the claim. In addition, the behavior of Feinstein in holding the accusation until "the right time" indicates that she had no interest in addressing the sexual assualt claim, but rather in stalling and delaying a vote. If she had reported this in July when she was provided the details, I would give this more credence (and I suspect most Repubs would too), but that she didn't implies that she knew that July would have been too early, and would have allowed Kavanaugh's name to be withdrawn and another name (that the Dems would have also opposed) been submitted that they would be forced to address before the midterms.
When you take in these considerations, plus the fact that the individual is a documented Anti-Trump activist and that her social media appears to have been sanitized prior to the announcements lead me to believe that the charges are solely political.
I find it amazing that Dems are fine with him going back to his "sweet gig" of being an appelate judge while believing that he committed sexual assault on a woman. Either we believe he did this and he shouldn't be on any court, or he didn't and thus should be acceptable to the SC. Not sure I understand the acceptance of the middle ground here.
The other possibility of Feinstein handing it over when she received it is that there would have been plenty of time to look into the allegations without the accompanying circus act to make Republicans look bad by moving forward.
As of this morning Feinstein still hadn't given the GOP members of the committee unredacted copies of the letter. Nor has she given it to Kavanaugh or his lawyers.
This is no attempt to find justice and every attempt to thwart Kavanaugh being placed on the SCOTUS. Any other nominee (not named Kavanaugh) for this position would likely be facing similar shenanigans.
This was a huge blunder on her part, IMO. Feinstein could have interviewed the purported victim, got all the alleged details and then completely blindsided him with it in broad daylight in a setting where he would be forced to respond with zero preparation. Just a bad move from her perspective.
Look, regardless of truth, this is a political charade to stall a qualified court appointee. I hope it fails and he gets appointed.
Similar threads
